A WARNING has been given that government planning guidelines, which allow property owners to sub-divide and build homes in their own back gardens or demolish properties to make way for larger developments, "could change the character of Haslemere" forever.

The warning by Haslemere Waverley councillor Jean Mansley came at a meeting of the southern area development control sub- committee last week.

It follows the latest planning trend where applications refused by planners in an effort to protect from over-development and other reasons, are passed on appeal by government planning inspectors, costing taxpayers thousands of pounds in appeal costs.

Referring to a recent successful planning appeal which had allowed a home in Weydown Road to be demolished and replaced by two detached homes, Mrs Mansley said it represented "a typical example of what was going on and was terribly sad".

Her remarks, which were echoed by committee chairman Ann Mugford, came after planners went against the recommendation of planning officers and refused outline planning permission for a house in the grounds of an existing home in Courts Hill Road.

"We are finding it very difficult as planners to counter it unless there are environmental or traffic grounds - we have got to have a good reason," said Mrs Mansley after the meeting

"This is an ongoing situation with people getting on the bandwagon and splitting up gardens or demolishing a single property and turning it into two," she claimed.

"It is not just happening in Haslemere but it doesn't help the neighbourhood and character of the town. It is a big problem in the whole area and I know there are a lot of concerns about it all," continued Mrs Mansley.

She said that an additional problem was that appeal decisions were made by planning inspectors from outside the area.

"Where is the democracy on that?" she asked.

Discussing the outline plans for Courts Hill Road, Mrs Mugford described the government rules as "a dichotomy".

"People are quick to seize on the opportunity while the government is requiring us to make the best use of the land."

A petition was submitted containing 63 names of residents worried about a number of issues, among them that if the building went ahead it could be overbearing, overlook neighbours and intrude on a "green finger" of land.

Waverley planning officers had recommended that the principle of building on the site should be allowed.

But Jacquie Keen was among a number of town councillors concerned about the loss of a "green finger" of land in the town in a narrow road, the building of a house on the elevated site and the impact it would have.

Mrs Mansley, who was the only member to vote for the proposal, said: "It is clearly difficult and we don't have a lot of reasons for refusal. We may not agree with government guidelines but we are stuck with them."

The committee decided to vote against the application on the grounds that it would be over-dominant and out of character.

A separate planning application to extend the existing property was agreed.